An overloaded boat leaves France for the UK (Image: Getty)

A far-right linked activist group that blanketed England with thousands of St George’s and Union Jack flags last year has unveiled plans for a vigilante operation to halt small-boat migrant crossings in the Channel, dubbing it “Operation Overlord” in a nod to the D-Day landings. Mr Bridge, co-founder of Raise the Colours, told a podcast he aims to “do the Keir Starmer” by “smashing the gangs” behind the crossings, echoing the Prime Minister’s rhetoric on tackling people smuggling.

Mr Bridge, a football hooligan associated with Birmingham City’s Zulus firm, claimed his group would succeed where the Government has failed. Speaking on the Anything Goes with James English podcast, Mr Bridge said: “We’ve all got this burning passion inside us that we know it’s not right. We want to stop it. We really do want to do the Keir Starmer, we’re going to smash the gangs.”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (Image: Getty)

In November, Mr Bridge and associates travelled to Calais, northern France, where social media videos showed them wading into the water to confront migrants in boats and slashing inflatable vessels. Invoking World War II imagery, Mr Bridge said: “You can see Dover and think, ‘Bloody hell, the Germans got this far and we held them back in the war’.” He further described migration as an “illegal invasion.”

He plans to use the winter lull in crossings—due to harsh weather—to prepare for summer action. Mr Bridge predicted: “By this time next year… not one immigrant has come across.” Addressing accusations of extremism, Mr Bridge said: “Hitler was a raving psychopath. That’s not what we’re about.” He claimed Raise the Colours is reclaiming flags from racist groups like the English Defence League (EDL) and National Front.

However, the group has ties to far-right figures, including Danny Tommo, a close ally of former EDL leader Tommy Robinson, who was jailed for a knifepoint kidnapping attempt. Last year, Raise the Colours drew endorsements from Robinson and was accused of stoking racial tensions, though it denied this.

Regarding the presence of the flag at his home, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “I am very encouraging of flag-flying.” He noted his family displays a St George’s flag in Downing Street, while cautioning against divisive use.

This story is based on reporting by Novara Media, an independent left-wing news outlet known for investigative journalism on social and political issues, which spoke to Mr Bridge and aid workers in Calais.

Lachlan Macrae, from the Calais Food Collective, said: “Raise the Colours was previously endorsed by Keir Starmer. The reason why they’re coming out and doing this stuff is because they’re emboldened.”

Aid workers blame the Prime Minister’s anti-smuggling language for emboldening such activists.

Mr Macrae described a surge in far-right visitors harassing migrants, wearing stab-proof vests and live-streaming confrontations. He noted increased sabotage, including swastikas on water containers and soap poured into supplies to render them unusable.

Mr Macrae added: “There have always been far-right groups coming to Calais, but we’re seeing more and more as it has become a focal point in the media and politics.” Regarding the feasibility of the activist’s plans, Mr Macrae said: “The claims are preposterous.” He instead attributed pauses in crossings to weather, not vigilantes.

Calais serves as a key hub for migrants fleeing war or poverty, many embarking on perilous journeys from countries like Sudan. Mr Macrae argued: “If you have travelled from Sudan, the way you understand risk is different. People are not going to turn around because there is some angry white guy on the beach screaming at them.”

Mr Bridge, who has a history of football violence, including a three-year ban for brawling, likened the “buzz” of hooliganism to his activism but insisted it’s lawful.

He promised more flags across the UK this year and Mr Bridge vowed: “Legally and lawfully, we’re going to take the bull by the horns and Operation Overlord is going to come into play.”

‘Patriots’ Who Put Flags Up All Over England Reveal New Plan to Stop Small Boat Migrants

Britain’s immigration debate has entered another controversial chapter after a group of activists known for displaying thousands of British flags across England revealed plans for a campaign targeting small-boat migrant crossings in the English Channel. The group, known as Raise the Colours, has attracted considerable attention through its patriotic demonstrations and its widespread display of St George’s flags and Union Jack banners. However, its latest proposal has raised questions about whether ordinary citizens should become directly involved in immigration enforcement and whether such activities could create additional dangers for migrants, rescue workers and other people using the Channel.

The campaign has been described as Operation Overlord, a name inspired by the Allied military operation that began the liberation of Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War. According to reports published in January 2026, the group’s co-founder, Mr Bridge, discussed plans to organise activities aimed at stopping small boats carrying migrants from reaching British shores.

He suggested that his supporters wanted to take a more direct approach rather than simply displaying flags or organising demonstrations. He also claimed that the group intended to challenge the criminal networks responsible for arranging dangerous Channel crossings. His comments attracted attention because they suggested a possible shift from symbolic patriotic campaigning towards direct intervention.

Raise the Colours became widely recognised during 2025 after supporters organised the display of large numbers of St George’s flags and Union Jack banners in towns and cities across England. The campaign was presented by its organisers as an expression of national pride, cultural identity and support for British traditions.

For some supporters, the flags represented a desire to celebrate the country’s history and national identity. They argued that displaying national symbols should not automatically be associated with racism or political extremism. However, critics expressed concerns about the political associations of certain demonstrations and the presence of activists linked to far-right movements.

The latest campaign has therefore attracted attention from both supporters and opponents of the movement. Its organisers argue that the British government has failed to address irregular migration effectively, while critics warn that private individuals should not attempt to take control of border enforcement.

The English Channel remains one of the most important maritime routes connecting Britain with mainland Europe. Thousands of commercial vessels, passenger ferries and fishing boats operate in the region every year. It is also a dangerous route for people attempting to cross in small inflatable boats.

Many migrants travelling across the Channel come from countries affected by conflict, political instability, persecution or severe economic hardship. Some are seeking international protection, while others hope to establish better economic opportunities in Britain. Their individual circumstances vary considerably.

The journeys are often organised by criminal people-smuggling networks that charge passengers substantial amounts of money. These organisations frequently use overcrowded inflatable boats that may lack adequate safety equipment. Passengers can face dangerous weather conditions, powerful currents, cold water and the risk of drowning.

British authorities have repeatedly warned that small-boat crossings can result in serious injuries and fatalities. Rescue organisations, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, regularly respond to emergencies involving vessels in distress.

This makes the proposed activities of private campaign groups particularly sensitive. Any attempt to physically interfere with boats at sea could create serious risks, especially when vessels are overcrowded or operating in difficult weather conditions.

Although citizens have the right to express political opinions and organise peaceful demonstrations, immigration enforcement is the responsibility of authorised government agencies. Border Force, the Home Office, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the police operate under established legal powers and procedures.

Private activists do not have general authority to stop migrant boats, conduct immigration checks or force passengers to return to another country. Interfering with vessels or obstructing rescue operations could result in criminal investigations and potentially serious legal consequences.

The campaign also reflects growing dissatisfaction among sections of the British public with the government’s handling of immigration. Critics of current policies argue that irregular arrivals place pressure on housing, healthcare, education and public finances. They also question whether the existing asylum system processes applications quickly enough.

These concerns have become particularly prominent in coastal communities such as Dover and Portsmouth, where residents have witnessed the arrival of migrant boats and the deployment of emergency services.

However, the wider immigration debate is more complicated than the number of boats arriving on British beaches. Britain also receives migrants through legal routes, including employment, education and family reunification. Small-boat crossings represent only one part of the country’s overall migration picture.

Another important distinction concerns the legal status of people arriving by irregular routes. Someone who enters the country without prior authorisation may still have the right to apply for asylum. Under relevant British legislation and international refugee obligations, authorities must examine individual claims and determine whether applicants qualify for protection.

This does not mean that every asylum application will be accepted. People whose claims are rejected may be subject to removal procedures, depending on their circumstances and applicable legal protections.

The government’s responsibility is therefore to maintain effective border controls while ensuring that immigration decisions comply with the law. It must also take action against criminal organisations that exploit vulnerable people and profit from dangerous journeys.

Operation Overlord has also attracted criticism because of its historical name. The original Allied operation involved an enormous military effort during the Second World War and played a decisive role in the liberation of occupied France. Using that name for an anti-migration campaign has generated debate about the appropriateness of comparing modern immigration issues with wartime military operations.

Supporters may view the reference as an expression of determination and national solidarity. Critics, however, argue that such language risks creating an unnecessarily confrontational atmosphere and portraying migration as a military invasion rather than a complex social and humanitarian issue.

The involvement of individuals with connections to controversial political movements has added another dimension to the discussion. Some critics have questioned whether the campaign is genuinely focused on national pride or whether it could become a platform for hostility towards migrants and minority communities.

The organisers have rejected accusations that their activities are motivated by racial hatred. They argue that their campaign concerns national sovereignty, border security and the enforcement of immigration law.

These competing interpretations demonstrate why it is important to examine the group’s actual activities, public statements and conduct rather than making assumptions based solely on its use of national flags.

There are also practical questions about whether civilian campaigns could make a meaningful difference to the number of small boats arriving in Britain. People-smuggling operations are organised by criminal networks that may quickly adapt to changing circumstances. A confrontation involving activists could potentially create further emergencies without addressing the underlying reasons why people attempt dangerous crossings.

The British and French governments already cooperate on border security through intelligence sharing, coastal patrols and operations targeting smuggling organisations. International cooperation is essential because the Channel is shared by several countries and cannot be effectively managed through isolated national actions.

In addition, improving the efficiency of the asylum system could help reduce uncertainty for both migrants and local communities. Faster decisions, effective legal procedures and appropriate support for people with legitimate protection claims are important parts of a functioning immigration system.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Raise the Colours reflects wider divisions within British society over immigration, national identity and the meaning of patriotism. Some citizens believe stronger border enforcement is essential to protecting national sovereignty and maintaining public confidence. Others argue that immigration policies must also respect humanitarian principles and the rights of people seeking protection.

In conclusion, the announcement of Operation Overlord by Raise the Colours has brought renewed attention to Britain’s continuing small-boat migration debate. The group believes that stronger action is necessary to challenge irregular crossings and criminal smuggling networks. However, any attempt by private citizens to intervene directly in maritime operations could create serious safety and legal problems. The government must respond to legitimate public concerns through effective border enforcement, international cooperation and a properly functioning asylum system. At the same time, peaceful protest and national pride should remain within the boundaries of the law. Britain’s immigration debate requires practical solutions, accurate information and responsible leadership rather than confrontations that could put human lives at risk.